MOORHEAD CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3575, 7 October 1916, Page 7

MOORHEAD CASE.

APPEAL DISMISSED

TIMARU, October 5. At the last sitting of the Supreme Court in Tiinaru, .John Moorhead, a North Canterbury farmer, appealed from the decision of tlio Magistrate at Timaru (Mr Day), who had made an order that Moorhead was to contribute 10s a week towards tho support of his cousin's chiki. Mr M. Donnelly appeared for Moorhead, and Mr W. D. Campbell for the cousin. At the hearing Mr Campbell raised a new ;>oint. lie said that under the Destitute Persons Act no order could be made in respect of an illegitimate child over six years of age, unless it could be proved that the father had cou!'.ributed towards the support of his child within the 12 months preceding the application for assistance. In this case, the father had so contributed, having had the boy at his place for six weeks at Christmas. This, counsel' contended, brought Moorhead within the Act, and there was no real'dispute as to the paternity. The reserved judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Denniston has now been given. In it he says: —The appellant appeals, from.an orjter by, a Stipendiary Magistrate adjudging ' him, to; be ijhe putative father of an illegitimate child born' on the. 18th day of August, 1904, mid ordering him to pay a sum of £20 for past maintenance of such child, £4 2s costs, and 10s nor week for its future maintontvneo. The paternity of the cKild is admitted ( Tho only question is one of law as to the construction of sub-section 5 of section 8 of tho Destitute Persons Act, 1910. The appellant ninny years ago paid the costs of the passage from Homo of tho respondent and her sister, the latter of whom the appellant married on arrival. After the marriage the respondent lived with the appellant and his wife. During the period the appellant became tho father of two sons by the respondent. One of theso is now 26 years of age, the other is the subject of the order now in question. The sons were brought up in the family and were generally understood to be the sons of the appellant's wife. In June, 1912; the respondent left the appellant, leaving the boy with him. He paid her a substantial sum of money on her | leaving—she says as wagevS. She lent most of this to her elder son. She went to Timsmi,. Later she received a letter from the appellant in these . words:" Booth can stay here until you get a place for him. He is not going to school any more here. I will have nothing more to do with him." She wrote to him complaining, but found a place for the boy in Timaru. Later she took a small house and kept the boy. She says that previously to doing so she went to the appellant, who- refused to do any more for the boy and threatened to give her in i charge. In November. 1915, the boy: wrote to. the appellant a. letter, begin-j nirig, •■'■ My dear father,'' asking if he I co'iild go up to the api>ellsint, for the Christmas holidays. To this the appellant replied, acknowledging the^letter and saying he could come up at any time he liked, a.nd arranging to have him met. He did go up, and spent aix weeks with his father. The only question is as "to the construction _of the qualification made by sub-section 5 of section 8 of the Destitute Persons j Act, 1910. Was the keeping of the t boy for six weeks a " contribution to or provision for the maintenance" of the boy ? That the boy was maintained for that period,, and that he was so maintained owing to the fact that he was the son of the appellant, ia clear. That it was not intended by either party to have tho. effect now contended lor ia also clear. I do not, however, think that this Is an answer. The object of the sub-section is to put a limitation of the time within which nn order can be appled for, evidently to prevent claims when the rebutting evidence might have disappeared. The appellant has within the proscribed period, in response to an application addressed to him as tho father of the boy,- maintained him for six weeks. | That is. to my mind, clenrly n contri- | bution to his maintenance. To that extent it also supplies directly as well a<s indirectly confirmatory ovirlonce of thf* nftterp.ity of th" boy. Tho appeal is dismissed, with £7 7s costs.